3 ms·
In what way? The fundamental argument is that war is less profitable than economic competition, which is exactly how the Cold War progressed, and why the US won
by jdlshore 3y ago
In what way? The fundamental argument is that war is less profitable than economic competition, which is exactly how the Cold War progressed, and why the US won.
Edit: My mistake, I thought you were talking about Deveraux’s theory, but it looks like you were talking about the Economic Stability Theory OP mentioned.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> The fundamental argument is that war is less profitable than economic competition, which is exactly how the Cold War progressed, and why the US won. So for countries that lose the economic competition, might war be a 'better' option?
- pas 3y agoif they can decisively finish it fast and keep the spoils. post-WW2 this was only true for the superpowers. and only some of the times. (eg. see the failures in Afghanistan, see how it's impossible to finish a war quickly if there are sufficiently powerful allies of the target willing to sponsor the insurgency/proxy war, etc.)
- rocqua 3y agoIt could be a 'high variance, low expected value' play. Like pulling the goaly when you are behind. That kind of strategy only makes sense if 'losing by a little' and 'losing by a lot' are equally unacceptable. That doesn't tend to be how economic competition between countries works I think?